It brings to mind fundamental organizational and management. Is it better to have a "rude" organization? Calling bullshit early and often instead of polite everything is fine stacks of lies since it would be impolite to point out having O(N!) code just can't work for anything of appreciable size? The optimal approach likely varies on several variables.
The thing is, being insulting is largely counterproductive. Even where the best response from the person being insulted is that they shrug it off, it still modifies the relationship and attitudes towards the insulter.
Really good to see him acknowledge this and tackle it head on. I hope he gains a better perspective. Thank goodness for Linus and Linux!
Probably not a huge game changer, but it's definitely a little hack that I think has served me well over the years.
My workplace is extremely polite to each other AND we don't lie to each other. I recently submitted a code review that was full of violations of the style guide, and nobody was rude nor dishonest.
How much toxicity a project can tolerate is in inverse proportion to how important it is, but every project has its limits no matter what.
I think this is a wise choice. Either Torvalds needs to figure out people better, or he needs to bring in a lieutenant who can handle people more effectively than he does.
A rude leader drives people away from the organization. It is directly counterproductive.
Linux is by far the most successful floss project in the history of mankind. God knows there are plenty of floss OS projects out there, most of which have far nicer leaders but a small fraction of the success. Either you're overplaying the effect on productivity or the relevance of being nice.